Re: mechanics of surprise

On Mar 7, 2:32 am, mkkuh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Mary K. Kuhner)
wrote:
> In article <5t2su21nkccgbufj20i8ui8bf2jg5pg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Erol K. Bayburt  <Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, this is the problem with inflationary hit points mechanics. One
> >handwave is to claim that the hammer-wielding giant only gets a
> >slight, glancing hit when he "hits" a high-hit-point foe, vs a solid,
> >lethal hit vs a low-hit-point one. This works tolerably well for melee
> >attacks against heavily armored targets, but is a lot harder to
> >swallow for missile attacks or attacks vs lightly armored targets.
>
> If you want this handwave to have any versimilitude at all, healing
> should be made to work as a percentage of your HP, not a fixed
> number.  It is really hard for me to understand why a barely
> scratched hero requires much more healing magic than a mortally
> wounded peasant.
>
> >>I find that the PoD in our current system, where blows and missiles
> >>miss rather often and armor prevents some damage, tends to be quicker
> >>than in First Edition but not as quick as the PoD in some modern
> >>systems.
> >Such systems have two problems of their own, IME. First, they have a
> >high variance - an attacker with a low chance of success might still
> >hit and put a target down with his first swing or shot, even if he
> >might need a dozen shots on average.
>
> And as a result, there is not much chance for a PC to realize that
> she is in trouble (unless blows that miss are treated as informative--
> the GM could share the numbers with the player, arguing that the PC
> could judge the opponent's strength).

"That certainly fatal tail-sting _just_ failed to hit you." is
probably the clearest warning I ever gave anyone that she was in
trouble. Backed out quick she did and her friends with bows, out of
range of the stinger, did the rest.

>
> I had a lot of trouble with this in the (small amount of) GURPS
> I played.  There was a blow out there that would kill my PC.  It
> might come early or late, and I had no way to know; nothing modelled
> "I'm getting into trouble here."  A fight the PC could easily handle and
> one that would kill her looked just the same--up until the one blow.
> (I'm quite prepared to accept that this was a badly designed GURPS
> game.)

I think characters should often, perhaps usually, know who can kill
them in one blow and who can't. A campaign where such foes are
indistinguishable from many others who cannot is, in my opinion,
flawed.

However, the answer in my campaign is "A foe your own size is not
_likely_ to kill you in one blow but almost anyone can on rare
occasion. Armor will usually help a great deal. Really BIG or magical,
or both, foes can often kill in one blow but the big-n-clumsies have a
lot of trouble hitting you. Usually." My players don't seek combat
uneccesarily. They are mostly not professional adventurers, just some
people in a bit of a tough spot.

>
> Will has said that he doesn't care for PCs running or changing
> tactics after combat has actually started, so this may not be
> a concern for him.

I don't mind their doing either but neither should, in my opinion, be
easy or without cost. In pre-gunpowder warfare, it was broken armies
that took the highest casualties by far. Retreat in good order, while
still being defeated, did not result in a high loss of life. Changing
tactics is a different matter. If other tactics are available and the
group can coordinate the change in the hurly-burly more power to
them.

Will in New Haven

--


>
> Mary Kuhner mkkuh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]